Which has led some to ask: hey, Hasbro, why not lighten up? Why not get, you know, all webby with this, and, you know, buy Scrabulous? That way you get the good PR and you get the fabulously successful applications that everyone triple-word-score plays on Facebook.

I can think of a simple reason why not: because it wouldn't make fiduciary sense. And because Scrabulous hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, which means that if it comes to a court battle things will get both expensive and unsuccessful for Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla.

Now, if Hasbro were to pay good money for Scrabulous, which would involve processes like due diligence (to make sure that there weren't debts and other infringements of IP lurking in the depths - you never know, which is why due diligence is required in any takeover) and negotiations over price, Hasbro shareholders could legitimately ask: why? Why pay our money for a company that's infringing our IP?

Therefore it's much simpler and cheaper for Hasbro, which I believe may have one or two lawyers to hand, simply to sue the Agarwallas until things are so unpleasant for them that they have to fold their tent and hand over Scrabulous to Hasbro, which can then relaunch it on Facebook.

In which case, for the cost of some of its lawyers' time writing aggressive lawsuit papers, Hasbro gets the company it wants without having to do due diligence (it can pick and choose what it wants from Scrabulous) and for very much less money, while defending its IP. Win-win-win for Hasbro.

And I'll bet half of you are saying "that's shameful" - but that's business. And that another half are saying "Well if they do, then I'll never play Scrabulous again!" To which I say: oh, really?